From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932784AbXIJSib (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:38:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753127AbXIJSiY (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:38:24 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.33.17]:44642 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751651AbXIJSiX (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:38:23 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to: mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: content-disposition:references; b=hJg+ou2MPl+MuvG7CGhIIkp9qS7jO75d1lF5Vw67BhlXmTYv4w6W4m42xAFxvmt/H 4BVqaBFRmdmWXJlJnjWDA== Message-ID: <6599ad830709101138q7528eba7ia4fb618b8fe158cc@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 11:38:10 -0700 From: "Paul Menage" To: vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com Subject: Re: [Devel] Re: [PATCH] Hookup group-scheduler with task container infrastructure Cc: "Jan Engelhardt" , containers@lists.osdl.org, "Ingo Molnar" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net In-Reply-To: <20070910172334.GB19100@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070910171049.GA16048@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20070910172334.GB19100@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 9/10/07, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > > Unless folks have strong objection to it, I prefer "cptctlr", the way it is. > By definition any container (about to be renamed control group) subsystem is some kind of "controller" so that bit seems a bit redundant. Any reason not to just call it "cpu" or "cpu_sched" Paul